Headset MP3 plug in (thing?)

[Hugh_Jarse]

Colonel Mushroom :-

A prig because you clearly think you are above the law, and have a bad attitude towards it, even when it is manifestly obvious that you are in the wrong, yet still think it smart to argue like a chav car thief that you don't believe it bcause no one has shown it you in writing. The law says NO, end of. There is no discussion because you think you can argue a personal exemption.
Wise up.

Ignorant, because of your telling remark about radio failure/calamity. Are you really a pilot? I doubt it , somehow.

Reason?

Any proper pilot has read the ANO - heard of it?

And what does the ANO say about obeying rules in cases of emergency?
Well, what???

I'm not going to give you a reference - go look it up, and then, if you're man enough, come back here and apologise.

That's an awful lot of hot air for someone who obviously can't give me a reference ...

If I didn't believe you and your amenuensis are firmly on the wind-up, I'd be happy to debate blind adherence to bad law by those incapable of independent thought, but I don't want to spoil your fun - I don't imagine you get out much ....

[Agaricus bisporus]

QED,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Ryan5252]

I must say (as I seem to have been drawn to a response against my better judgment) I wholeheartedly with the Captain (in other threads also) and indeed the 'fungus'. Granted, I am only mid way through my PPL training; I fly for the passion and no other reason. I want to perfect my art of flying and constantly aim to better my previous flight. I take great pride in my own limited airmanship and would expect nothing but at least the same level of commitment from my fellow 'pilots'. It truly amazes me the attitudes displayed by some people here - if you can do nothing else - shut your mouth and respect those with more experience than you and perhaps you would be amazed to see that you don't know everything and, in turn, you might just learn something. The one with the guy putting his headset over his iphone earpiece... the world has gone mad and unfortunately it has spread to the skies
I hope to have many years of flying ahead and I honestly don't know where this path will take me, but one thing I can say for sure is the day I behave in this way will be the day I will hang my headset up for good!

Yours in desperation
Ryan

[tomtom_91]

So I wont get the adapter?- Bad time for a bad joke? Sorry

[Hugh_Jarse]

Ryan5252,

With your bold text you give yourself some excellent advice, which I think you should probably follow. As long as you wait until you actually have some experience yourself before deciding if Wing Commander Toadstool actually does know everything, you should be just fine ...

Let's be careful out there, y'all ...

[IO540]

A firm in the USA called Safety Cell does headset adaptors for popular phones. I bought the Nokia one some years ago; it worked fine but I never used it for real because I find GSM barely works above 1000-2000ft (with some amazing exceptions like being able to get continuous 9.6k internet connection over France at FL80 once) and a text message is much better (which tends to work, eventually, anywhere in the first few thousand feet).

GPRS/3G is even worse.

In an aircraft that does not have FM-immune systems, it is just plain stupid

You ought to look up the frequencies for (a) VHF and (b) GSM

Can somebody find the reference in the ANO which says GSM must not be used airborne, on a private flight??

The reality is that it barely works. One can send texts in general but voice calls tend to be too unreliable even when low down. I suppose one could use it for calling up some anally retarded airport re PPR (one of those who tell you on the radio to land and make a phone call - I think we know who they are).

Perhaps with this rabid attention to the rules you should edit GASIL.

Love it

[Captain Stable]

For those insisting upon references, I have already posted two CAA pages which confirm that it is illegal. If that's not good enough for you, then do your own research, and phone the CAA. 01293 567171.

I find it really very telling that PPL students here are the ones defending good airmanship and good safe practice while those trying to defend breaking any rles with wehich they happen to disagree and saying they'll do as they like are (I assmue) qualified PPL's.

[IO540]

I have already posted two CAA pages which confirm that it is illegal.

Those airline passenger advisory website pages are not law applicable to private flights.

For GA, you need to find a reference in the ANO. The PDF is called CAP393.PDF and you can find it at caa.co.uk. When you have found the reference, please post it so we can be suitably educated.

In a nutshell, the way the law for GA works is this

Civil Aviation Act
Air Navigation Order

and then you have

LASORS (odds and ends delegated to the CAA to fix as they wish)

Everything else is basically advisory, not law, or is simply bullsh*t

[Captain Stable]

When you actually study for a licence instead of playing with yourself over MS FlightSim, you'll do a subject called Air Law. In studying for that, you will find that not all the rules are contained within the ANO.

Now go away and play, and stop bothering the grownups.

[Fuji Abound]

FWIW I think you will find IO is pretty well qualified and, more to the point, probably one of the most experienced GA pilots on here.

I was flying a Cirrus last week which has a built in telephone. It uses the Iridium network of low orbit satellites rather than a ground based system common to other mobiles.

The system enables you to send SMS anywhere in Europe at any level, receive METARs and TAFs and weather radar. Its certified and, having checked the manual, there is no requirment to turn off the system when flying any approach including an ILS.

[Captain Stable]

(5) All radio communication and radio navigation equipment installed in an aircraft
registered in the United Kingdom or carried on such an aircraft for use in connection
with the aircraft (whether or not in compliance with this Order or any regulations
made thereunder) shall:
(a) be of a type approved by EASA or the CAA in relation to the purpose for which it
is to be used;

Part 3, Article 20.

Fuji, approved equipment fitted to the aircraft is one thing. Plugging in your Nokia and chatting to your mates or having your ears blasted out by "Highway to the Danger Zone" is another.

It is not good enought for ANYONE, no matter their level of experience or qualifications, to decide which rules they will follow and which they will not.

[IO540]

I was flying a Cirrus last week which has a built in telephone. It uses the Iridium network of low orbit satellites rather than a ground based system common to other mobiles.

I was going to suggest that too; I have used the Thuraya system myself for getting airborne weather data (tafs, metars, radar images) but not myself used it for voice (it needs a connection into the intercom to work properly).

I did once get an incoming call (I was on the ground) from a friend at FL300 over Greenland, using his Iridium phone, and while it was legible the quality was extremely poor, which I think is fairly typical of satellite phone systems. I wonder if this is normal...

installed in an aircraft
registered in the United Kingdom or carried on such an aircraft for use in connection
with the aircraft

Didn't look up the context (in the ANO context is everything) but "installed" means installed in the aircraft, and "in connection with the aircraft" means exactly what??

This is why you cannot permanently install e.g. a satellite phone in an aircraft, without a load of paperwork.

You can install the satphone rooftop antenna (e.g. page 7 here) easily because one can get them with Approved Data e.g. TSO. However, the phone and its "car holder" don't normally come with Approved Data so that part is normally mounted in a "temporary" manner. I am sure there are fully approvable systems and maybe the Cirrus is one such - presumably this was an N-reg Cirrus? I'd imagine getting this through EASA would be a nice gravy train for somebody. This looks interesting...

[BEagle]

Consequently, the current CAA policy restricts the use of cellular telephones in aircraft. All crews should be alerted to the specific risk from active cellular telephones on the flight deck and should review their procedures to ensure they are switched off.

You may also find that if you used your spiv phone in flight, you would breach the contract with your provider and they would terminate your contract.

[IO540]

You may also find that if you used your spiv phone in flight, you would breach the contract with your provider and they would terminate your contract.

Has this ever happened?

The network provider cannot tell - other than through analysis of base station connections and even then airborne use will be inconclusive because there will be no altitude data.

Countless airline passengers embark with their phones ON and these phones continue to connect to base stations for the first few thousand feet up. If people were getting cut off, we'd know about it by now.

[west lakes]

Folks
A couple of technical points on mobile phones (from memory as the report I produced for someone else on this site is on my other computer)

Reception
As you know phones use UHF frequencies and transmit a digital signal. The ground antenna are set to be directional and a base will normally have an array of 3 aerials each covering 120 (with overlap) in the horizontal plane.
They are also set to "look down" so that little or no signal is transmitted upwards - which is why mobiles can be intermittent at altitude (I did work out from the specs how far from the transmitter you could get a signal at altitude - it was in excess of 40 miles)
This directional setting is the opposite to, say an, aircraft VHF aerial that broadcasts the signal through a 360deg plane.

Multiple site blocking
Can't happen, whan a phone signal is recieved by the system the ground operating system (computer) registers that phone to a particular site (the one with the highest signal).
As the phone moves it's signal is monitored and when the signal level from another base station becomes greater than the signal to the registered site the ground system then de-registers it from it's existing site & re-registers it to the new site known as handover.
Most systems are designed so that an individual phone cannot use two sites simultaniously. Though there is one system where this occurs briefly at handover only.
(We use a VHF PMR radio system at work that does the same, and can set the radio to actually display which site it is working through)
This again varies from aircraft where some national FIS services use mulltiple transmitters with offset frequencies to prevent interference if multiple sites are used.

[Captain Stable]

Thanks for that, west lakes.

As we all know, legislation always lags technology.

The fact remains, however much IO540 might want to search for loopholes and room to squirm, that it is illegal to use a mobile phone when airborne.

The fact also remains that it is very, very stupid to use a handheld when mobile, to make calls unless in case of an emergency, to send texts, to listen to music, etc. etc.

[IO540]

The fact also remains that it is very, very stupid to use a handheld when mobile, to make calls unless in case of an emergency, to send texts, to listen to music, etc. etc.

Clearly one for the post of the editor of GASIL

[Captain Stable]

And do you consider then that GASILs have no relevance to you? You appear to think they're a load of rubbish that you can happily ignore. If you have nothing but scorn for GASILs and use your comment as an insult, I think people can judge for themselves what your attitude to the rules and to safety is.

[Hugh_Jarse]

Captain, come on, be brave ... you can tell me, I won't breathe a word ... are you really DFC ?

[Fuji Abound]

Inevitably the law will mould how we conduct ourselves in any walk of life. With luck laws are introduced to prevent people following a course of action likely to do harm to themselves or to others. However blind obedience to the law can be dangerous; I thought it was a serious mistake when the carriage of fixed EPIRBs was mandated and wrote to the CAA to explain why. Although my aircraft has a fixed EPIRB if I had to choose between a fixed unit and a hand held unit for over water flights I would opt for the hand held every time and always carry a hand held EPIRB. Representations of this sort often cause the law to be changed for the better.

In the US it is very common for pilots to listen to music or the radio while flying – in the UK it is rare. Personally, I think rather than distract, it improves concentration so long as the music is muted whenever there is traffic over the radio. It is equally common practice for surgeons to play music during the most complicated procedures.

Sending SMS or dialling ‘phone numbers whilst flying in VMC inevitably means a certain amount of head down time which whilst OCAS is clearly not a good idea. On the other hand whatever effect the signal may have on the aircraft’s radio navigation systems is hardly relevant if these are not being used for navigation. If the mobile is connected to your headset (ignore for a moment that it will usually only work low level), and you have set up a one button dial for the number you want to call and the call cuts our if there is radio traffic then realistically doing so is neither likely to be any more hazard that changing frequency on the radio or glancing at the map. As pilots we spend a lot of our time multi tasking and prioritising – that is what we do.

I am not advocating using your mobile, I am simply pointing out that it is worth considering why the law is framed in the way that it is and why common sense should dictate that some things are safe, and other things less safe.

I think that is the more interesting aspect of PPRuNe and other such forums – the discussion that often follows about why legislation is framed in a particular way, rather than simply answering questions posted by other forumites.

I think so far as the fine publication GASIL is concerned there is more than a tendency for many of the "articles" to be written in somewhat patronising terms, hence the reaction often provocted on here and else where. Perhaps the editors would sometimes do as well to consider their own edicts on Human Factors - if you dont present the material in the best way your audience is at best likely to switch off and, at worst, not read the material at all.

So far as DFC is concerned I wonder what has happened to him - I have heard he may have become a number of recent forumites, but I wonder.